News about our books, authors, and more.

How shortages of antiretroviral therapies could jeopardize India’s race to eradicate AIDS.

by CECILIA VAN HOLLEN

World AIDS Day in 2011 marked the launch of the UNAIDS campaign “Getting to Zero” with a bold call for zero new HIV infections, zero AIDS-related discrimination, and zero AIDS-related deaths by 2015. As we approach 2015 we should indeed celebrate the great strides the world has made in the battle against HIV/AIDS in each of these three arenas—but we must also acknowledge that much work remains to address the grave inequalities of access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care and support services worldwide. This year’s World AIDS Day theme of “Close the Gap” signals the UN’s commitment to enabling all people, everywhere, to access the services they need—a message particularly salient for India, as the country struggles to make crucial treatments widely available.

“Close the Gap” signals the UN’s commitment to enabling all people, everywhere, to access the services they need.

With approximately 2.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS, India has the third largest HIV-positive population worldwide. Whereas global health experts prophesized doomsday scenarios about India’s AIDS epidemic at the beginning of the 21st century, today they tout India as a success story. Indeed India’s record in reining in this epidemic is commendable. India witnessed a 57% decline in new HIV infections between 2000 and 2011; a 38% decline in AIDS-related deaths between 2005 and 2013; and it now has a relatively low adult HIV prevalence rate of 0.3% (compared to Swaziland’s 26.5% and to the United States’ 0.6%).

As the space for debate in Moscow shrinks, the options for the country’s future look ever narrower.

by SAM GREENE

A view of the Kremlin from the Bolshoy Kamenny Bridge. Photo by Pavel Kazachkov. CC-BY-2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

The news and the invitation were waiting for me, both, when I got off the plane from London to Moscow. I saw the invitation first—from a long-time colleague, to attend a workshop on the future of Russian politics later this month at Memorial, the venerable Russian historical society and human rights organization. I saw the news two hours later: 17 days after that workshop, Russia’s High Court will hold a hearing on the government’s demand that Memorial be liquidated.

That is the condition of life in Russia these days: two hours in which an invitation takes on a funerary pallor, 17 days in which the world becomes immeasurably smaller. Rarely has the distance between today and tomorrow been so great and so fraught as it is now.

In January 2014, the Eastern and Southern United States were plunged into extraordinarily frigid temperatures that stranded air travelers, stressed power grids, closed schools, and killed more than 20 people. In all, the lives of more than 187 million people (roughly 60% of Americans) were affected by the record-breaking cold. Meteorologists identified the “Polar Vortex” as the culprit; a large cyclone, first studied in 1853, that circles at the poles of the Earth. And, much to their dismay, they watched it become yet another flash point in the rhetorical war over climate change.

Climate change has been transformed into a rhetorical contest more akin to the spectacle of a sports match.

On the one side, Rush Limbaugh called the Polar Vortex an invention of the liberal left to further promote the “global warming agenda.” Fox News referred to it as the “so-called” Polar Vortex and aired multiple pundits claiming that global warming cannot be true because it was so cold. Under a regular blog called “Planet Gore” (named for former Vice President Al Gore), the National Review mocked “alarmists” for a tendency to believe that “There is absolutely nothing that ‘global warming’ can’t be linked to if you try hard enough.” Adding fodder for the war, a Russian research vessel became stranded in the Arctic while studying, among other things, global warming. That led Donald Trump to enter the fray:

2014 has been an extraordinary year for America’s death penalty. From the near miss abolition in New Hampshire to a California judge declaring the state’s death penalty unconstitutional; from a series of high profile botched executions to the April publication of a study estimating that 340 people may have been put to death unjustly since 1973 (a study, tellingly followed by the exoneration of two death row inmates)—capital punishment has been very much in the headlines. President Obama has even acknowledged that “In the application of the death penalty in this country, we have seen significant problems—racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, you know, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to have been innocent because of exculpatory evidence. And all these, I think, do raise significant questions about how the death penalty is being applied.”

Comments like those of the president, headlines like the ones we’ve seen this year, indicate the turmoil that has come to surround the death penalty. Of late it seems the conversation about capital punishment has taken a sharply different direction. More and more Americans seem to be asking not what the death penalty does for us but rather what the death penalty is doing to us and to some of our most cherished values.

Should wealth be permitted to amplify individuals' democratic participation?

by TIM KUHNER

In 1972, milk producers pledged $2 million to the reelection campaign of sitting president, Richard Nixon. In response, Nixon’s administration provided price supports worth over two hundred times that amount. Clement Stone, Nixon’s top individual campaign contributor, also gave $2 million. Meanwhile, the average contribution of Nixon’s largest ten donors was $400,000 each. The record from the Watergate Scandal documents the corruption that resulted, including the selling of ambassadorships and public acts to large campaign contributors. Never once since Watergate had it been legal for any single donor to donate such large sums to candidates and party committees—until this April that is.

Going forward, an ever-tinier sliver of wealthy Americans will control the financing of campaigns and political parties.

Handed down on April second of this year, McCutcheonv. FEC strikes down the federal limit on the total amount of money that any particular donor could give to candidates, PACs, and party committees. The Federal Election Campaign Finance Reform Act— Congress’ response to the Watergate Scandal—prohibits any donor from giving more than $5,200 to any one candidate, $32,400 to a single national party committee, $10,000 to any state or local party committee, and $5,000 to any particular PAC. Beyond those “base limits,” the Watergate reforms also implemented “aggregate limits,” prohibiting any particular donor from giving over $123,200 total to all candidates, PACs, and party committees.

In the newest iteration of DVR technology, Aereo—a newly launched tech company in New York City—has come under fire for selling a service that allows subscribers to watch television programs over the Internet. Aereo’s unique business model consists of leasing antennae to subscribers who can then retransmit television broadcasts (hours or even just seconds after their original air-time) to their internet-enabled devices, whether a laptop, tablet, or smartphone. As of 2012 the service offered the retransmission of programming from twenty-eight channels, including all major broadcast channels.

Alarmed by this latest innovation in the cord-cutting online TV trend, a slew of broadcasters, including such heavy-hitters as CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox, sued the nascent company for copyright infringement. They construe Aereo’s business model as analogous to that of a cable company—as a redistribution channel for media to the public—the only problem is, unlike the cable company, Aereo does not pay a license to television producers or broadcasters to retransmit that media, and in their view, is in violation of their copyright claims. Aereo, however, argues that its service is more akin to existing DVR, VCR, and DVD technologies—other equipment-based technologies whose “record” and “play” functions, under the current law, do not constitute copyright infringement.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby addressed a seemingly narrow issue: whether the Obamacare regulation requiring corporate employers to provide insurance plans that cover contraception violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in cases where the employers in question have religious objections to some or all contraceptives. But the Court’s ruling also makes a crucial broader point: that people are not required to give up fundamental legal rights when they organize themselves into a corporate body. That principle has important implications for constitutional law. It is a vital protection for individual rights in a society where we unavoidably conduct much of our business and charitable activities by using corporate organizations.

It is indeed true that corporations are not people. But those who own and operate them are.

RFRA was enacted in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. It protects religious freedom by requiring the federal government to prove that laws that “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion are the least restrictive means to protecting a “compelling” government interest. The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and other businesses involved in the case objected to being forced to provide insurance for some forms of contraception because they belong to the small minority of Americans who believe that some or all types of artificial contraception violate the dictates of their religion.

From Hobby Lobby to capital punishment—a reflection on this year's constitutional issues.

As the Supreme Court returns to the bench on Monday, the Stanford Press blog offers a brief retrospective on some of the defining constitutional questions of 2014, including commentary on such high profile cases as Hobby Lobby, McCutcheon, and Aereo, as well as a reflection on perhaps one of the biggest constitutional quandaries not to feature on the SCOTUS docket this year: the death penalty and its concomitant legacy of botched procedures. See the full lineup for this week’s series below.

A lesson from tragedy: Why citizenship does not remedy racial inequality.

A popular refrain from protesters in Ferguson.

The death of Michael Brown at the hands of a Missouri police officer in Ferguson just over two weeks ago has reinvigorated a contentious national conversation about race and justice. An NPR news correspondent, reporting on the President’s remarks on Ferguson, notes that Obama has assumed an even-handed approach, aiming to turn this (and other racially charged events during his presidency) into a “teachable moment.” A groundswell of educators, students, and others have mimicked this tack, taking to Twitter to mint the hashtag #FergusonSyllabus, where users of the hashtag are creating a digital trove of resources, sharing links to books, lesson plans, and other articles of note related to Michael Brown’s shooting and race-based inequality more broadly.

As I grope for understanding in these dark times, for reasons not entirely clear to me, I find myself assailed by the Brothers Grimm tale, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I do not aim to pursue a flat analogy that renders Israel the scheming Wicked Queen and the Palestinians, the fair and gentle Snow White. But in a state where facts and fables are rather interlaced (for instance, “Jewish and democratic”), fables can at times illuminate facts.

Israel’s chronic onslaught on Gaza hearkens back to the Queen’s deadly arrogance. Launched after two rounds of massive killing in 2008 and 2012, this most recent Israeli binge (depicted by the powers that be as “Israel’s right to defend itself”–read “its might to defend its occupation”) has, as of this writing [July 31], killed 1,364 Palestinians in 24 days, with 56 Israeli soldiers and 3 civilians joining the body count.

But you may wonder how the fable’s pretense relates. You recall that the Queen cannot bear being rivaled by Snow White’s beauty. I maintain that Israel, “the only democracy (sic) in the Middle East,” cannot tolerate Palestinian political will, self-determination, sovereignty, or even mere presence. Therefore Israel doggedly works to crush Gaza’s freedom, a freedom and persistence of will that keeps Gazans in their homeland despite Israel’s doublespeak-veiled efforts to expunge them.

What's happening in Gaza today is far from an isolated event; it's one instance of the Palestinian condition.

by SHERENE SEIKALY

A man and his young son sit on two cement blocks, surrounded by piles of rubble that were once their home, on the edges of what was once their street. Their postures mirror one another. With thin arms dangling over knobby knees, fingers clasped, and eyes downcast, they survey the losses. They ponder the next step.

It was 16 July, eight days after the Israeli military commenced its onslaught on the Gaza Strip. This image, like many, would circulate through multiple venues around the world. It expressed the desperation of the Gaza Strip.

Beginning at nine in the evening of 19 July, Israeli tanks, artillery, and missiles pounded the residents of one of Gaza City’s poorest and most overcrowded neighborhoods, Shuja’iya. The Israeli media and its European and US cohorts script these people as “human shields.” With the adjective “shield” these media pundits render 1.8 million people external to the category of the human. Their mere existence, as Palestinians on what remains of the land of Palestine, effectively renders them non-human.

The next morning the streets of Shuja’iya were lined with corpses and body parts. A matriarch with a blood-spattered headscarf cried in shock. A young man lay immobilized in the rubble; he called out to God just before an Israeli sniper killed him. The people that remained fled in terror, racing for their lives under ongoing assault. A dark cloud hung over them as they walked, drove, or rode away in wheelchairs leaving their homes behind.

When I visited Shatila last week two topics dominated conversation: the carnage in Gaza and the deleterious effects of the construction boom underway in the camp. I’ll take them in turn, though Shatilans usually don’t; for them, each topic seems the underbelly of the other.

Building in Shatila has long been described by residents as a kind of cancer, its growth both irregular and hazardous. The waves of Syrians and Palestinians fleeing Syria since 2011 have caused it to metastasize. Two years ago its population was estimated at 21,000, around 9000 of them Palestinian. Friends tell me the influx of refugees, alongside the steady flow of Lebanese and labor migrants seeking cheap housing in Beirut, has brought the number closer to 35,000. Shatila’s density rivals that of Gaza City.

The camp has spatially transformed since my last visit in 2012. For the first time I found myself unable to recognize certain streets. The building I lived in has grown by three floors­­; others have grown by four. The memory of natural light cools near windows now giving out onto cinderblocks. There is a pervasive sense of foreboding; miming the blind, hands outstretched, my former neighbor told me she now prayed for divine guidance when the electricity cut. Services already overextended are collapsing under the strain. Electricity cuts are now constant, the water has turned salty as the camp’s wells run dry­ (“even the earth is crying!” said one resident) and the overflow of sewage and garbage is now overwhelming. “Our blood is boiling over Gaza, but also over conditions here—we can barely move or breathe,” explained Abu Hasan, who has lived in Shatila for forty years. “We’re dying everywhere.”

Scholars reflect on the recent intensification of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

After three weeks of bloodshed and failed cease-fires, the violence in Gaza shows few signs of letting up. This week, the Stanford Press blog presents a 10-part series, featuring essays from noteworthy scholars on the ongoing crisis in Gaza, as well as reflections on the Arab-Israeli conflict writ large. See the full list of posts in the Gaza series below.

Surveillance cameras capture the violence as it unfolds in Gaza and the West Bank.

by AMAHL BISHARA

On May 15, 2014, Nakba Day—a day on which Palestinians commemorate the mass dispossession caused by the formation of the state of Israel—Israeli army snipers shot and killed teenagers Nadeem Siam Nawara and Mohammad Mahmoud Odeh Abu Daher during a protest outside of the Ofer prison, where Palestinian political prisoners are held near Ramallah. A few days after their deaths, Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI) issued a video, “Unlawful Killing of Two Palestinians Outside Ofer,” featuring surveillance camera footage of the shootings from a nearby business, as well as an interview with the business owner.

In measured Arabic, the business owner explains that the area had been calm at the moment of the shooting. We see that at 13:45:08, according to the time code of the surveillance camera, one boy walks calmly toward a building on the right side of the frame. Suddenly he stumbles, sticking his arms out straight for an instant. By the time his body hits the ground he is limp, and then still. Just over an hour later, as black smoke likely from a fire in a dumpster clouds the left corner of the video, a boy walks slowly away from the building. He, too, suddenly crumples to the ground. By the time the time code reads 14:58:55, it is all over.

The radical Jewish left in Israel and Gaza is lending its voice to the outcry on behalf of Gazans.

by ORIT BASHKIN

This image was created by political satirist, Amir Schiby, following the deaths of Ahed Atef Bakr, Zakaria Ahed Bakr, Mohamed Ramez Bakr, and Ismael Mohamed Bakr in Gaza while playing on the beach.

Following Operation Protective Edge, many cities around the world have witnessed demonstrations sympathizing with the people of Gaza. Tel Aviv had a few as well. Haggai Matar, a leftist activist, participated in one on July 12:

The right-wingers announced in advance that they would be coming to physically assault us in the protest. However, police paid no heed to the warnings, nor to the threats made on the scene when the protest began, nor to our requests that the very few police officers present would call for backup and try to physically separate the two demonstrations.

When the air raid sirens wailed in Tel Aviv that evening, we knew one thing for sure: The thugs in front of us were more dangerous than the rapidly approaching Hamas-fired rockets. While the Iron Dome intercepted the rockets, by the evening’s end one leftist activist was injured and hospitalized, an independent journalist had his video camera stolen and dozens of others were hit, pushed, thrown to the ground or had eggs thrown at them. Two local coffee shops were vandalized as the right-wingers suspected that demonstrators were hiding inside.

Now, I’ve been shot at, beaten, arrested and spent two years in prison for conscientious objection, but this brutal attack by dozens of bullies chanting, “Death to Arabs” and “Burn the leftists” — just two weeks after a young Palestinian boy was torched to death — was one of the most frightening experiences I’ve ever encountered.

Matar captures the sense of terror and isolation that many Israeli radical leftists have felt in recent weeks. The brutality of the right-wing was condemned in mainstream media, but the event itself marks a dangerous trend in Israeli society.

Search

About the Blog

The SUP blog showcases new books and Press news in addition to serving as a forum for our authors—past and present—to expound on issues related to their scholarship. Views expressed by guest contributors to the blog do not necessarily represent those of Stanford University or Stanford University Press, and all guest contributions are denoted by a byline and an author bio.

Republishing Guidelines

If you would like to republish an article from the Stanford University Press blog, please contact us at blog@www.sup.org. We can secure permission to republish from our authors and provide text and other files for easy republication.

If you wish to republish an article, we ask that you credit the Stanford University Press blog as the original publisher of the material and provide a link to the source post somewhere alongside the republished content.